Do not agree with your lawyers when they suggest it is a good idea to be helpful with the investigators by creating a tidy tale.

When a story has been told to a judge casting you in a bad light, put some evidence on the table casting you in a good light.

Later: Do not invite a bunch of TV celebrity pals show up for the jury deliberations and decision.

Do not immediately and before sentencing post a note on your website saying that you are innocent despite the guilty finding by the jury - only to take it down hours later when you realize that you are insulting the system about to sentence you to jail.

Last night's Charlie Rose panel and yesterday afternoon's Crossfire on CNN suggested strongly that the problems now facing Martha - like what oversized handbags go with orange overalls - were due in large part to bad advice and not a little hubris on the grand dame's part. As the jury apparently found her guilty on all remaining counts in short order, they may have agreed as well.

Comments

I always thought the domestic diva got the worst legal advice money could buy in this case. At least it was consistent: bad advice, right up to the verdict. I wonder if she is that type of intimidating “client” that you just can’t give any bad news to? I would have thought that these experienced lawyers would have told her “straight” from the outset: fess up – you made a terrible mistake (it would be difficult for her to say she didn’t know what her broker was telling her was “insider information” – for God’s sake she was a stockbroker herself at one time - but I suppose she could have tried something along that line) and take your lumps. If they didn’t tell her straight, they should be doing the time along with her. I wonder if they got “written instructions” from her with respect to the defence strategy (ie. Martha not taking the stand)? What’s the law on “ineffective representation”? Can she sue? It seems obvious that the jury believed that she thought she was “too good for them” to have to tell them her side of the story. Maybe she would have gone over like a lead balloon anyway, and may be the strategy now is to fire the legal team, hire new gunslingers for the appeal and blame the old team. I don’t see that she has much choice. Did you know that a plain grey prison blanket can be turned into an attractive “throw”?<p><i>Later</i>: Now I hear that one of the reasons she didn't "fess up" was that the Feds didn't care to "deal" and still wanted her to prosecute her, in order to, at the very least, embarrass her and to see her do "hard time". In that case, she would have had all the sympathy the media could muster esp. for such a paltry amount of "profit", as everyone makes mistakes, even Martha. She could have donated twice that amount to a local woman's shelter. She then would have made mince-meat out of these "mean spirited, out-for-blood" prosecutors. You know, "the killing the flea with the howitzer" thing. Too bad she didn't see it that way. She got terrible, terrible advice.

Feeds

Search

Articles

Pick any day's tunes as heard on CBC Ottawa's All in a Day hosted by my personal emailing buddy, Brent Bambury. You won't find a better music selection on radio anywhere - certainly not on the deeply dowdy CBC.

From Jan to March 2006, I tried a group humour blog with others on the subject of Canadian politics. It did not last but the posts were worth keeping. #16 was banned. There were no comments. It was at www.shadowcabinet.ca.